ORDER

1. These special leave petitions are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 6-6-1996. They arise out of civil suits filed by the petitioners wherein they had challenged the proceedings initiated against them on the basis of show-cause notices issued under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the State Act"). The petitioners have filed replies to the said notices wherein they claimed that they were not unauthorised occupants of the premises and that they were in occupation as tenants of the premises under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and that their tenancy has not been determined. In the suits the petitioners had sought a declaration that the State Act was not applicable to them as well as a permanent injunction restraining Respondent 2 from initiating action under the Act. The said suits of the petitioners were dismissed by the trial court on the view that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the view of the bar to jurisdiction under Section 16 of the State Act. The said judgment of the trial court was reversed in appeal by the appellate court and the suits were remanded for trial to the trial court. By the impugned judgment dated 6-6-1996 the High Court has set aside the judgment of the appellate court and has restored the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suits. The review petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the High Court. In pursuance of the order dated 25-4-1997 passed by a Bench of two Honble Judges of this Court these petitions have been placed before us.

2. Shri Venkataramani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has placed reliance on the decision in LIC of India v. Shiva Prarsad Tripathi ((1996) 7 SCC 676 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 659 : (1996) 33 ATC 351) and has submitted that the suits filed by the petitioners were maintainable and that in spite of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the State Act it is open for the petitioners to file a suit claiming that they are not unauthorised occupants of the premises and their tenancy is still continuing. We have perused the judgment of this Court in LIC of India v. Shiava Prasad Tripathi ((1996) 7 SCC 676 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 659 : (1996) 33 ATC 351). In that case this Court was primarily concerned with the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act") which confers finality on the order passed by the Estate Officer or appellate authority. In the Central Act the provision regarding bar of jurisdiction of the civil court is contained in Section 15. In LIC of India v. Shiva Prasad Tripathi ((1996) 7 SCC 676 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 659 : (1996) 33 ATC 351) this Court has not considered the question regarding maintainability of the suit in view of the bar to the jurisdiction contained in Section 15. In that case the order for eviction had been passed by the Estate Officer under the Central Act and it had been upheld in appeal and a writ petition had been filed challenging the said orders. The said writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court but the said judgment of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was allowed by this Court. In the present case we are concerned with the bar to jurisdiction of the civil court contained in Section 16 of the State Act which contains provisions similar to those contained in Section 15 of the Central Act. Section 11 of the State Act contains provisions similar to those contained in Section 10 of the Central Act which gives finality to the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the appellate authority. The decision in LIC of India v. Shiva Prasad Tripathi ((1996) 7 SCC 676 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 659 : (1996) 33 ATC 351) has, therefore, no application to the present case.

3. Shri Venkataramani has further submitted that the bar t